The use of barristers by the banking inquiry may turn the tables on the greedy
and corrupt

How do we expose the dishonesty, incompetence and greed of our ruling political class, of the bankers, politicians, bureaucrats, police chiefs and business moguls? Never has that question seemed more urgent than in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster report, the ongoing banking scandal, the Ian Tomlinson affair and the Leveson Inquiry – among others.

Our Establishment has a talent for cover-up and whitewash. All too often it takes years and costs millions to reveal the facts about misconduct in high places. The main options are official inquiries chaired by a judge, employing highly paid but expert lawyers. Or we can leave it to MPs on select committees, with a high risk that they will play to the gallery, grind political axes and fail to get their act together when it comes to questioning slippery witnesses. Is there another way that could combine forensic legal skills with democratic accountability?

Some at Westminster believe there is. Almost unnoticed, the banking commission, a joint committee of MPs and peers set up after the Libor scandal, has given itself powers to hire not just expert witnesses but senior barristers. I understand that two QCs with expertise in banking are set to work with the commission once they have been formally approved. If the experiment is successful, other select committees may follow suit.

The move could make Westminster select committees as effective as those of the US Senate, which has long employed leading counsels to advise members. Critics point out that the wholesale import of lawyers could undermine the democratic process, that some investigations by MPs are about exploring policy ideas rather than skewering wrongdoers – and that lawyers cost a fortune. On the other hand, a dozen MPs asking random questions rarely pin down a witness as effectively as an examining counsel would. Lawyers describe the standard of questioning by some MPs as “risible”. And there is always the risk of MPs following party political lines instead of trying to uncover the truth.

One of the worst examples of this came 100 years ago with the Marconi scandal. Lloyd George and other ministers used their inside knowledge to buy shares in Marconi. They were plainly guilty of wrongdoing – but fellow Liberals on an MPs’ committee of inquiry let them all off the hook. Later, a law was passed allowing governments – but not MPs – to set up judicial inquiries. Yet judicial inquiries are not always the answer: witness the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday, which provoked public fury by taking 12 years to report and cost an estimated £200 million.

The banking commission, which is chaired by the Tory MP Andrew Tyrie and includes the former chancellor Lord Lawson, is thought to be considering a range of options for using its barristers. It could ask a QC to lead its questioning or merely to advise it by helping to frame its questions and co-ordinate its line of attack – or both.

The decision to bring in barristers while keeping firm democratic control over them should be applauded. MPs, to be fair, have been taking great strides in holding to account ministers, officials and others – from media moguls to bankers. But all too often they prove inadequate to the task of getting to the bottom of major scandals. Any attempt to find a cheaper, more effective way of uncovering wrongdoing is to be welcomed.

-------------------------

Stand by for the debate over gay marriage to start hotting up again. Maria Miller, who is the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as well as the new minister for equality, has boasted this week that the Government’s consultation on gay marriage has attracted a record 228,000 responses.

It is indeed a record – breaking that previously held by the HS2 railway consultation, which brought in 100,000 replies. What Mrs Miller does not say is that a high proportion of those commenting on same-sex marriage are against. Quite how high a proportion is not yet clear – officials are still wading through the replies.

They are also wrestling with some delicate issues. At present, adultery and non-consummation are both reasons for ending or annulling a marriage, but not for dissolving a civil partnership. Extending the rules on adultery to same-sex marriages should be easy enough. But the traditional definition of non- consummation could be more problematic.

Civil servants working on equalities – there are around 100 of them – have also found themselves on the move again for the sixth time since their unit was set up in 2007. They have been part of the Cabinet office, BIS, DWP, the Home Office and briefly formed a stand-alone department. Why the constant moving? Partly because governments always want to ensure the equalities minister is a women and partly because DCMS is shrinking now that the Olympics are over, so Mrs Miller will have time to tackle equality issues.

She staunchly defends gay marriage, but it could yet cause problems for the Tories. Many responses to the consultation have come via letters, which tend to be from older people and tend to be against. Yet grey voters are more likely to turn out and more likely to vote Tory.

The commitment to gay marriage was part of David Cameron’s bid to detoxify the Tory brand – it comes from the hug-a-husky era. Given the ongoing political fallout, he may yet live to regret it.